The Constitution gives far too much power to the Federal Parliament and far too little power to the people.
The question of Northern Territory statehood is a good example.
The Constitution says, “”The Parliament may admit to the Commonwealth or establish new states, and may . . . impose such terms and conditions, including the extent of representation in either House of Parliament, as it thinks fits.”
Notice the people of the new state, or the existing states, get no binding say.
It comes from the 19th century view of the world in Britain, and to a lesser extent Australia, that sovereignty lies with Parliament, not the people. Indeed, the British Government at the time was highly suspicious even of the clause in new Australian Constitution which vested the power to amend the Constitution with the people via referendum.
So the Parliament is given power to admit or establish new states. It is also given power over the electoral system for the Senate.
As it happens, there will be a referendum in the Northern Territory on whether the people want to become a state. This is not because there is a constitutional requirement. Nor will the referendum be binding. Indeed, it will be a charade disguising a political pressure tactic.
Prime Minister John Howard and Northern Territory Minister Shane Stone in Canberra and Federal Territories Minister Alex Somlyay in Darwin simultaneously announced the statehood plan.
Somlyay said, “”I will soon be seeking the Governor-General’s approval for the conduct of a Territory referendum in conjunction with the next federal election, whenever that might be.”
In other words, this is a referendum created by the Executive Government, with no legislative or constitutional force.
Inevitably, there will be an overwhelming motherhood approval for the Northern Territory to become a state. This will then put huge pressure on the Opposition Labor Party and the minor parties in the Senate. The pressure will be not to block the Government’s blueprint in all its details worked out with their fellow conservative Stone. To block that blueprint will be branded as denying the people’s voice.
Somlyay identified the probable sticking points: Aboriginal land rights, ownership and control of uranium mining, the management of Kakadu and Uluru national parks and the number of senators the state of the Northern Territory would have in the Federal Parliament.
Those four issues, particularly the last, will be of far greater import to Opposition and minor-party senators than the fact of Northern Territory statehood. Statehood per se means very little. The place is self-governing now. There has been only very minor federal interference in that. It has been limited to the federal anti-euthanasia law that over-rode territory legislative power in the area and federal refusal to hand Kakadu and Uluru to territory control.
Even uranium mining is non-issue. The Northern Territory as a state could allow uranium mining that as a territory could be stopped by the Feds. But whether a state or a territory the Feds have the power to stop the export of uranium and without export licences the uranium is not worth digging up.
Influence in federal referendums is of little moment either. A referendum needs a majority of states for approval. That is four states out of the present six or still four states out of a new seven. The NT might make up a fourth Yes vote, but that would be rare.
No; the real sticking point will be the extent of representation in the Federal Parliament. Under the Constitution, Original states get a minimum of five seats in the House of Representatives and a equal number of senators as all other states, at present 12. Under legislation, the mainland territories each have two senators and their number in the Reps is determined by population — at present in the NT has one. Stone is willing to compromise. He will cop only one member of the Reps, but wants four senators, instead of the present two.
When the question is debated in Federal Parliament this issue will override the sentimental and logical reasons for statehood. The NT has a very strong sense of identity. Its low population is irrelevant. The NT has a similar ratio of population to NSW as the state of Nevada has with the state of California. Other federations have similar disparities between the most and least populated.
No; the selfish requirements of the federal political parties will determine the issue. Each party will see what NT statehood can give them in the Senate.
At present the NT and ACT Senate representation is major-party neutral. In every election since senate representation was granted in 1974, the major parties have got one senate seat each in each territory. NT statehood could change that.
For a start, present territory Senate terms are different from state Senate terms. Territory senators serve a term equivalent to one House of Representatives, typically three years, so both senators in each territory are up for election at the same time, ensuring each major party gets one seat each.
If a territories worked on a half-senate rotation system like the states, however, only one senator would be elected every six years. That would upset the neutrality balance. It would be possible for one or other of the major parties to get an advantage, say by Labor winning an ACT seat at successive elections and scoring an NT seat every now and then.
If the NT were given four senators on the usual half-senate rotation with all four up for election at double dissolutions, that, too, would upset the neutrality balance. It may be that the Democrats, Greens or One Nation, might feel they would have a chance at getting one of the four seats at a double dissolution.
When the issue goes to the Federal Parliament, there may be some unholy alliances of the type seen when the Nationals sided with Labor (against the Liberals) to increase the size of the Senate a decade ago.
The Democrats for example might be tempted to vote for NT statehood if they thought they could get an extra Senate seat occasionally.
The real issue is not to allow Parliaments to be the final arbiter of questions of fundamental importance like statehood and electoral systems. Ultimately, the detailed provisions should have to be approved by referendum.
The present proposal of the motherhood referendum “”do you want statehood?” leaving the devilish detail to Parliament puts events in the wrong order.
Indeed, the excessive power of Parliaments might well be a question for the new NT Constitution. Perhaps a Bill of Rights should be incorporated in it. That at least might allay the fears of Aborigines about statehood. Once again, the cynical detailless motherhood referendum is just a tactic to pressure Labor and the minor parties to succumb to the conservative side’s position on the details like national parks, Aborigines, uranium and representation.